If you could "easily pull samples" to prove your from mainstream sources, you would have. And by samples, I don't mean a single internet user representing millions of people.

Pro-choice people are Democrats, I can agree with that. Your argument is that pro-choice people see babies as parasites, which, unsurprisingly, you haven't backed up. As always.

"Yes, I deny that.  I don't believe that most democrats support UBI in the first place."

which isn't relevant 

"i'm pretty sure that the vast majority of democrats in support of ubi"

"And it's very possible to support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite."

why are unborn babies killed?

"Which you made even more clear.  The people you quoted above (especially the first one) are not saying that fetuses are metaphorically parasites, they are saying that they are literally parasites."

do you understand what "literally" and "parasite" mean?  it doesn't seem so, under no context could a baby literally be a parasite.. the word "parasite" is a biological classification for certain species

"You're taking positions espoused by some democrats and applying them to all.  "

even though i narrowed my scope down to democrats who support ubi and abortion simultaneously?

"One restricts bodily autonomy, one does not (redistributing my income does not limit what I can do with my body)."

"One involves something growing in someone's body, one does not."

what line of work are you in where you don't have to use your body at all?

"One poses significant health risks, to one party and death to the other, one does not. "

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2013/oct/30/occupational-hazards-health-and-safety-death-statistics

"Which jobs have a higher risk of injury or even death? The latest statistics show that 1.1 million Britons suffer from a work-related illness, costing society almost £14 billion."

you have such a narrow perspective on this that its alarming

"And again, these arguments are not being put forth by the same people."

can you name a mainstream democrat in support of ubi who does not support abortion?

"I get the weak analogy that's being made"

its not really weak at all but i understand why you feel the need to classify it that way

"And by samples, I don't mean a single internet user representing millions of people."

i gave four unique people 

and are you expecting me to post 1000 comments to have a representative sample?

" Your argument is that pro-choice people see babies as parasites, which, unsurprisingly, you haven't backed up."

i haven't backed it up even though i've posted examples? ok, again what are you expecting here? 1000 unique comments?

here's some more from other subreddits(these are the people you are allied with)

"

Babies are just a parasitic STD that, after 9months of sucking on a woman's nutrients, grows strong enough to leave the womb and instead feed on your financial resources.

You see this would all be squashed if you all view kids like the Amish. I respect the Amish. Kids aren't a drain they are free slave labor. Put your fucking kids to work.

Again, this is the second time you dodged my question. I didn't ask if you agreed with me of not because frankly I don't care if you do. I asked why do you think that way, why do you think mother's should be able to have abortions. And I'm going to add if you are pro-choice why make a thread that's obviously skewed and flawed from the start, anybody who has any simple concept of science would realize this and not even post such a flawed comparison.

I don't renege at all. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of conception and what is a group of cells or an actual child and you conflate the latter two and think it's one and the same but it's not. A group of cells isn't life, it isn't a person. A miscarriage up to 8 weeks of pregnancy is indistinguishable to a heavy period. Even our natural body knows that it isn't life. The "person" you think is a person isn't actually one according to scientific evidence and facts. You just feel it's a person but that doesn't make it one. You only think I'm reneging because you think a group of cells is a person and your factually wrong about that and so your argument is wrong and your comparison is wrong. 

People become wealthy by the people, we give them extreme wealth so in return they should give a portion back to us so we all can have a better life. Their wealth isn't being taken away, just a portion would be redistributed to the population to help society. Keep in mind we're hypothetically talking about multi-billionaires here, that is an incredible amount of money for one individual or family, odds are losing even 10 million of their 2 billion won't effect them. They probably won't even notice because they're still making incredible amounts of money.

Both Republican and Democratic parties stink. But reps are a lesser evil, but by a small margin.

"I asked why do you think that way, why do you think mother's should be able to have abortions."

you didn't ask me this initially, but regardless i believe people should be as free in societies as we can possibly make them, that goes for both men and women

i don't like the idea of unborn children being killed but i accept that its not my right to police other people's behavior

" And I'm going to add if you are pro-choice why make a thread that's obviously skewed and flawed from the start, anybody who has any simple concept of science would realize this and not even post such a flawed comparison."

can you explain to me rationally how anything i've said is unscientific?

"A group of cells isn't life, it isn't a person. A miscarriage up to 8 weeks of pregnancy is indistinguishable to a heavy period."

bacteria are life and a culture of bacteria is even less significant in appearance to a period... do you at least have a fleeting understanding of why this is an incredibly stupid argument?

"The "person" you think is a person isn't actually one according to scientific evidence and facts."

it would be awesome if you actually started posting some lol

"People become wealthy by the people"

so why aren't you and all the other people demanding that other people give you free stuff rich?

"we give them extreme wealth so in return they should give a portion back to us so we all can have a better life."

you gave who wealth? are you talking about paying for products? or paying for entertainment? you understand of course that these are transactions right?

as in you are not "giving", the other person is offering something you perceive to have a sufficient value for you to exchange a certain amount of money for

but regardless you do understand of course that most of the products you use come from the labour of much poorer people in inda, china, africa etc right? how much of your wealth have you donated to improving conditions in those countries?

or do your principles only apply to other people and not you?

if you are living in america and have time to be a video games enthusiast then you really shouldn't be making an argument as if you are part of "the poor"

" Their wealth isn't being taken away, just a portion would be redistributed to the population to help society."

if they have an obligation to give some of their resources to people who are less fortunate than they are why does this not also apply with pregnant women in your view? unborn babies will literally die if mothers refuse to share some of their resources with them

its kind of inconsistent to argue "well these people over here need to give their resources to these other people because otherwise they'll die" but then say "well these people over here don't need to give their resources to these other people and we'll just let those people die"

"Keep in mind we're hypothetically talking about multi-billionaires here"

with regards to what? taxation? so you don't want to pay taxes?

1. "And it's very possible to support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite."

why are unborn babies killed?

"you didn't ask me this initially, but regardless i believe people should be as free in societies as we can possibly make them, that goes for both men and women

i don't like the idea of unborn children being killed but i accept that its not my right to police other people's behavior"

That's your stance on abortion.  You are pro choice, without believing a baby is a parasite.  So, you've answered your own question and demonstrated that supporting a woman's right to have an abortion does not necessitate thinking of a baby as a parasite.  

2. "In fact, the biological definition of "parasite" fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman's body, just like a parasite does to its host."  This is clearly not a metaphorical comparison.  "Fits the fetal mode of growth precisely" does not mean it is metaphorically like a parasite it means it is literally doing what a parasite does, and thus is a parasite.  You may not agree with that, but that's the argument being made.

3.  I have no idea what you're trying to get at with the workplace statistics or use of body at work.  Would a UBI force me to work a particular job?  Does it limit my choice of jobs to ones that are particularly risky?  Work involves using your body in a potentially risky way with or without a UBI.  

"So, you've answered your own question and demonstrated that supporting a woman's right to have an abortion does not necessitate thinking of a baby as a parasite.  "

i told you that the comparisons to parasites was not the central point i was making, but i can't help but notice that you are refusing to answer my question

"why are unborn babies killed?"

why don't you want to go there?

" just like a parasite does to its host."  This is clearly not a metaphorical comparison."

you don't think someone using "just like" is speaking metaphorically?

and regardless if she had said explicitly that "babies are parasites" it does not change the fact that the word parasite is used as a biological classification for certain species

"Fits the fetal mode of growth precisely" does not mean it is metaphorically like a parasite it means it is literally doing what a parasite does"

ok lets ignore her framing her whole line of argumentation with "just like" for a second, you understand of course that a metaphor can contain direct references to its subject and still be a metaphor?

if i say "the boat steered just like a fish, the ruder allowing the boat to turn just as precisely as the fins on a fish" you understand that this is a metaphor right?

"I have no idea what you're trying to get at with the workplace statistics or use of body at work.  Would a UBI force me to work a particular job?"

obviously if taxes are raised then people will have to work more time to reach the same baseline they would have previously

"Does it limit my choice of jobs to ones that are particularly risky?"

its not entirely about risk, the point i'm making is that if more time has to be spent working then that's a restriction of bodily autonomy

"Work involves using your body in a potentially risky way with or without a UBI.  "

agreed

Within reason. Money being taken from richer people isn't the same as giving up your OWN rights to your OWN body.
That is ultimately the crux of the issue at hand.

What if some random person on the street had a disease... And for them to survive you had to give up a chunk of your life so that they could live at your expense? You wouldn't have the right to say "no" either. You would be forced to do it.

The highest earners don't loose any incentive what so ever.
In nations with significant levels of welfare, what you describe generally doesn't occur either.

In-fact... Because there is more wealth redistribution, there is generally higher levels of spending overall across the entire populace which drives the wheels of an economy.

Remember... Someone who is a billionaire likely has a ton of money stashed in a bank somewhere, ultimately not being reinvested and thus not adding to the economy a great deal... Where-as a low-income earner will generally spend every penny they acquire...

Give a million low income earners an extra billion dollars and that billions dollars will be spent into the economy. - Give a rich person a billion dollars and it will sit in a bank somewhere.

It takes two. The male should have a say. - But at the end of the day... Because the female is the vessel carrying the fetus, she should get the final say of what happens to her own body.

It's literally an argument about property (Aka. Body) rights.

Plenty of nations with significant financial safety nets though.
I mean here the only difference from a universal income and our current Basic Income is that it is means tested.

Yeah. I was corrected prior. Cheers.

Because the mother owns the body? Not the child?

Child is more than welcomed to survive via it's own accord after it's been aborted.

Unless you are suggesting people should give up their rights to their own body? Would you give up your right to your body if I needed say... Your kidneys to survive?

Nope. Because what you are suggesting is that a person should give up their Freedoms to their own bodily autonomy.

Plus... Not all pregnancies are "intended". - Condoms break, anti-pregnancy pills falter.
A friend of mine had the "snip" after his 4th child. - Ironically, his body healed the procedure and he ended up with a 5th child. - They kept it of course, he has a good paying job being border control.

Plus... A pregnancy is 9 months, circumstances can change, you can loose a job and become homeless, you could be suffering from an illness... List goes on.

At the end of the day though... It comes down to property ownership of an individuals body... And the person who was born to that body (The mother) should have the first and last say of what happens to it.

So I assume you are against the consumption of meat? Against the death Penalty?

At the end of the day, we are approaching 8~ billion people on this planet, a few abortions isn't really that much of a big deal.

Anyone who quotes anything from the Bible can generally have their view discarded in it's entirety until they can prove their assertions with empirical evidence that it is factual with it's claims.

Separation of Church and State would be something I would like for every nation across the globe to strive towards, religion is entirely unnecessary.